Friday, February 15, 2013

Call for Judgment: Credibility Where Credibility’s Due

Timed out and passed, 2-1 with 1 unresolved DEF. Josh

Adminned at 17 Feb 2013 08:58:10 UTC

The Speaker has reduced their Credibility score by 5 three times, citing rule “Encouragement”. However, that rule may only be enforced by the offender themself. I’ve reverted these actions, but we’ve now missed out on two opportunities to decrease the Speaker’s Credibility which, because of the rule “The Chair”, is kind of an important statistic. Therefore, I feel that we should retroactively apply the punishment that would’ve been handed out if not for scshunt’s mistake.

Reduce scshunt’s Credibility by 10.

posted by Purplebeard at 15 Feb 2013 14:25:09 UTC Comments (4)

Comments

RaichuKFM: she/her

15-02-2013 15:49:07 UTC

against Anyone else can do it, but they didn’t. So no, I don’t think he ought to lose Credibility at this point. The way its written, its 24 hours after the last loss. Since his last legal loss was done by you just now, it counts as the base loss, and we must wait 24 hours to do so again.

Purplebeard:

15-02-2013 16:22:32 UTC

My problem with this line of thought is that this precedent opens the door for malicious Honourable Members to intentionally misrepresent the gamestate in order to mislead the rest (not that I have any reason to doubt scshunt’s intentions on this specific occasion).

If my castle’s Defence value is inflated because of an illegal action on my part and you, based on that faulty information, choose to storm Henri’s castle instead of mine, shouldn’t I be disciplined for my mistake somehow after it has been noticed and corrected?

In this case, I for one only failed to perform the action because I thought it had already been done. I realise that we are all at fault for not noticing earlier, but scshunt’s mistake was, in my opinion, the greater.

Josh: Imperator he/they

15-02-2013 17:20:02 UTC

for

Henri:

15-02-2013 21:18:53 UTC

imperial